Cancer Risk From Emissions May Trigger Notices : Pollution: Neighbors of seven plants would be informed under a state right-to-know law.

A number of industries in the San Fernando, Santa Clarita and Antelope valleys pose a small cancer risk to their neighbors and, in a few cases, the hazard may be sufficient to require notification of nearby residents and workers, according to health risk assessments filed with the South Coast Air Quality Management District.

Risk assessments have been prepared for 24 sites in the three-valley area, including seven that may pose a maximum risk of cancer to their most exposed neighbors of at least 1 in 100,000, the documents show. People facing such a risk have one extra chance in 100,000 of getting cancer.

Neighbors of the seven sites could be notified under a state right-to-know law that requires businesses to warn the public of any “significant health risk” they pose. The air district has not declared what level of risk is significant, but officials have said cancer risks above 1 in 100,000 could trigger notifications.

Five of the seven sites are in the Burbank-Van Nuys area, and three of the seven are operated by Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co.

Of the 24 area sites, the one posing the highest theoretical risk was Lockheed’s B-1 plant at 1705 Victory Place in Burbank. According to the assessment for that site, the maximum risk was 15.4 in 100,000 for a small number of nearby residents and was 1.7 in 100,000 for workers in neighboring businesses.

Lockheed’s nearby A-1 plant--which was evaluated separately--posed a maximum cancer risk of 6.49 in 100,000, according to the report for that site.

These are “worst-case numbers” that were based on 1989 emissions that have been “very dramatically reduced,” Lockheed spokesman Jim Ragsdale said.

Lockheed is moving aircraft assembly work to plants in Palmdale and Georgia, and “our level of manufacturing work in Burbank right now is probably no greater than 20% of the work that we used to do in 1989,” Ragsdale said.

Maximum cancer risks from five other sites were estimated at between 1 and 5 in 100,000. Those sites were Lockheed’s Plant 10 in Palmdale, Rockwell International’s Rocketdyne plant on Canoga Avenue in Canoga Park, Price Pfister Inc. in Pacoima, Menasco Manufacturing Co. on San Fernando Boulevard in Burbank and Prudential Overall Supply in Van Nuys.

Sixteen of the remaining 17 area sites estimated their maximum cancer risk at between 1 and 9 in 1 million.

The reports, prepared by company consultants to meet a June 7 deadline, were reviewed last week by The Times. Engineers and scientists with the air district and state Department of Health Services must still study the reports and verify the conclusions. Risk estimates may be revised based on their review.

Cancer strikes about one in four Americans--or 25,000 of every 100,000. Although the role of pollution is a matter of debate, a study by reknowned epidemiologists Richard Doll and Richard Peto attributed about 6% of cancer deaths to pollution or toxic exposures at work. In any case, an added risk of 1 in 100,000 means 25,001--instead of 25,000--chances in 100,000. The risk estimates thus point to a small increase in what already is a very high risk.

The assessments were prepared under California’s Air Toxics “Hot Spots” Information and Assessment Act, which represents a first attempt to quantify hazards from specific businesses and to warn the public.

Under the 1987 law, air district officials directed about 1,200 businesses in Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Bernardino counties to file reports on the quantity and type of their air emissions. Based on these reports, companies were divided into three groups, and risk assessments were required of those in the high-risk category.

A first wave of 153 companies in the air district--including 26 area firms--were to submit their assessments by June 7. A week later, some 30 companies had yet to file, including Chevron USA Inc. in Van Nuys and Oryx Energy Co. in Newhall. District officials said Thursday that they had not decided whether to take enforcement action against firms that have not filed.

The law has already had one apparent benefit. Anxious to report the lowest possible risk, many companies have modified production methods, shifting to less-potent chemicals and cutting down emissions, according to the risk assessments and interviews with air district and business representatives.

The law has also proven to be a full-employment act for environmental consultants, whose services are in high demand. In addition, it has buried air district offices in El Monte in tens of thousands of pages of assessments--filed in triplicate and typically running at least 100 pages apiece.

While struggling to review the avalanche of reports, air district officials are in the process of ordering a second batch of 220 companies--including 16 area firms--to file their risk assessments by late fall.

The next stage, notification--which is supposed to start by Nov. 1--is the most controversial. Business officials have no desire to warn the public, fearing that this could bring disastrous publicity, political attack and even lawsuits, experts say. Some executives have urged the air district to require notification only if the risk is greater than 1 chance of cancer in 10,000.

Businesses have also bridled at the assumptions required in preparing the assessments. In an effort to err on the side of health protection, these guidelines may produce exaggerated estimates of risk. For example, one key assumption used in the calculations was that people live 70 years in one place and never leave home, thereby having uninterrupted exposure to airborne toxic substances.

When the guidelines assume “that an individual is a statue and does nothing but stay at that particular location for his entire lifetime, . . . how is the public going to evaluate what does this really mean?” said Stanley L. Zwicker, air resources director for McLaren Hart, a consulting firm that prepared assessments for several businesses.

“There are legitimate risks that are going to come out of this process,” Zwicker said. “Unfortunately, they’re going to be lost in a blizzard of questionable risks.”

A similar view is held by A. L. Wilson, president of Integrated Environmental Services, a consulting firm that has worked for business and environmental agencies. In a study this year for the air district and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Wilson’s firm measured levels of 13 chemicals in outdoor air at various locations and estimated that exposure to those levels posed a maximum cancer risk of 1.27 in 1,000--a risk many times higher than those posed by specific businesses.

According to Wilson, the notification process “has gone weird on us” if “we’re calling facilities ‘hot spots’ that actually expose people to” much less risk than the outdoor air they regularly breathe.

The notification process could stir “up fear and anxiety in the population for no reason,” Wilson said. “We have a lot of problems out there that need to be addressed . . . and this is not one of them.”

But others disputed the notion that the risks are insignificant, pointing out that in industrial belts such as Burbank-Van Nuys, many residents face toxic exposures from a number of companies at once.

Thanks to the hot spots law, “the public is finally going to have a fuller understanding of the risks they’re facing from the ongoing industrial use of toxic chemicals in their back yard,” said Jim Jenal, an official with Citizens for a Better Environment, a statewide environmental group.

As for people having exaggerated fears, “the solution to that . . . is to educate them to the point where they can put the risks into perspective,” Jenal said. “It’s not to withhold information from people.”

Already, many firms’ response to the law has been to eliminate use of more toxic chemicals and slash airborne emissions--if only to reduce the chance they will be ordered to notify the public.

Although the risk assessments were to be based on airborne emissions in 1989, companies that made pollution control improvements were allowed to factor that in to their estimates.

“A lot of companies are very concerned about sending out notification,” said Mark Saperstein, an environmental scientist with the air district. The firms “that were most alert to this looked at their emissions . . . very early on” to see what they could do to lower the cancer risk.

One such firm was Remo Inc. of North Hollywood, which calculated a maximum cancer risk of 5 in 1 million. That estimate, however, did not reflect 1989 emissions, but improvements made only in the last few months. Earlier this year, according to the company, it reduced its annual use of the suspected carcinogens methylene chloride and perchloroethylene by tens of thousands of pounds by switching to a safer solvent. The estimated risk might have been considerably higher if the 1989 data had been used.

Another example is Walt Disney Studios, whose risk estimate of 6.3 per 1 million reflected the elimination of cancer-causing hexavalent chrome from its paints.

Rockwell’s Rocketdyne Division also reported process improvements at its Canoga and De Soto avenue plants. Among these were eliminating use of 1,4 dioxane, a suspected carcinogen, and big reductions in the hours per week that it uses hexavalent chrome.

Using 1989 emissions data and air district assumptions, the company said the Canoga Avenue plant would pose a cancer risk to the most exposed neighbors of up to 4.78 in 100,000. Using current emissions data, however, the estimated risk drops to 1.09 per 100,000, according to Rocketdyne’s report.

Moreover, the company said, when current emissions are used along with “more realistic” assumptions--such as people living in a home for 30 years instead of 70 years--the risk drops well below 1 in 100,000.

“That’s why we don’t feel bad in saying our facilities pose a negligible risk to the community,” said Steve Lafflam, Rocketdyne’s director of environmental protection.

Air district rules bar new emissions sources that pose a maximum cancer risk of more than 1 in 100,000. Currently, no such rule exists for existing pollution sources. However, Saperstein said air district officials later this year expect to propose a companion rule for existing sources.

Estimated Cancer Risk From Air Emissions

Twenty-six companies in the San Fernando, Santa Clarita and Antelope valleys were required to estimate the maximum risk of cancer to nearby residents and workers most heavily exposed to their air emissions. *

* Maximum risk of 1 in 10,000 or greater (means that people receiving maximum possible exposure face a potential extra cancer risk of 1 chance in 10,000):

Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. Plant B-1

1705 Victory Place, Burbank

* Maximum risk between 6 in 100,000 and 9 in 100,000:

Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. Plant A-1

2555 N. Hollywood Way, Burbank

* Maximum risk between 1 in 100,000 and 5 in 100,000:

Lockheed Aeronautical Systems, Plant 10, Palmdale

Rockwell Intl. Rocketdyne Div.

6633 Canoga Ave., Canoga Park

Price Pfister Inc., Pacoima

Menasco Manufacturing Co.

805 S. San Fernando Road, Burbank

Prudential Overall Supply, Van Nuys

* Maximum risk between 6 in 1 million and 9 in 1 million:

Anheuser-Busch Inc.

Van Nuys

General Motors

Van Nuys

Menasco Manufacturing Co.

26 E. Providencia Ave., Burbank

Rockwell Intl. Rocketdyne Div.

8900 De Soto Ave., Canoga Park

Kahr Bearing

Burbank

Walt Disney Studios

Burbank

Allied-Signal Aerospace Co.

North Hollywood

* Maximum risk between 1 in 1 million and 5 in 1 million:

American Cyanamid Co.

Santa Clarita

Remo Inc.

North Hollywood

3M Pharmaceuticals

Chatsworth

Rockwell Intl. Plant 42

Palmdale

Polycarbon Inc.

Valencia

Superior Industries Intl. Inc.

14721 Keswick St., Van Nuys

ITT Gilfillan

Van Nuys

Crane Co. Hydro-Aire Div.

Burbank

Arco Oil & Gas

Santa Clarita

* Maximum risk between 6 in 10 million and 9 in 10 million:

Rockwell Palmdale Modification Center

Palmdale

* Assessments not filed:

Chevron USA Inc.

Van Nuys

Oryx Energy Co.

Newhall

* Most estimates based on 1989 air emissions data and health protective assumptions, including that plant neighbors reside in the same home for 70 years and are continuously exposed.